INFORMATION NOTE No. 30 on the case-law of the Court May 2001

<strong>INFORMATION</strong> <strong>NOTE</strong> <strong>No</strong>. <strong>30</strong> 

on the case-law of the Court 

May 2001 

The summaries are prepared by the Registry and are not binding on the Court. 

Statistical information 1 May 2001 

I. Judgments delivered 

Grand Chamber 3 13(15) 

Chamber I I 12 119(122) 

Chamber II 9 107 

Chamber III 7 71(75) 

Chamber IV 7(13) 49(56) 

Total 38(44) 359(375) 

II. Applications declared admissible 

Section I 11 72(80) 

Section II 17 132(133) 

Section III 40(41) 141(146) 

Section IV 11 106(108) 

Total 79(80) 451(467) 

III. Applications declared inadmissible 

Section I - Chamber 5(6) 20(21)

- Committee 184 597 

Section II 

- Chamber 7 48(49) 


Section III 

- Chamber 16 50 

- Committee 260 796(797) 

Section IV 

- Chamber 15 40(50) 


Total 926(927) 2781(2794) 

IV. Applications struck off 

Section I 

- Chamber 2 8 


Section II 

- Chamber 4(12) 32(214) 


Section III 

- Chamber 6 6 


Section IV 

- Chamber 2 4(6) 


Total 20(28) 98(282) 

Total number of decisions 2 1025(1035) 33<strong>30</strong>(3543) 

V. Applications communicated 

Section I 70(73) 198(206) 

Section II 23 133(134) 

Section III 21 81(83) 

Section IV 23 128(132)

Total number of applications communicated 137(140) 540(555) 

1 The statistical information is provisional. A judgment or decision may concern more than one 

application. The number of applications is given in brackets. 

2 <strong>No</strong>t including partial decisions. 

Judgments delivered in May 2001 

Merits 

Friendly 

Settlements 

Struck out Other Total 

Grand Chamber 3 0 0 0 3 

Section I 2 10 0 0 12 

Section II 4 4 0 1 1 9 

Section III 7 0 0 0 7 

Section IV 5(11) 2 0 0 7(13) 

Total 21(27) 16 0 1 38(44) 

Judgments delivered in January - May 2001 

Merits/Fond 

Friendly 

settlements/ 

Règlements 

amiables 

Struck out/ 

Radiation 

Other/autres 

Total 

Grand Chamber 11(13) 0 1 1 1 13(15) 

Section I 97(99) 20 1 1(2) 1 119(122) 

Section II 72 34 0 1 2 107 

Section III 64(68) 6 1 0 71(75) 

Section IV 41(47) 8(9) 0 0 49(56) 

Total 285(299) 68(69) 3 3(4) 359(375) 

1 Just satisfaction. 

2 Revision.

<strong>No</strong>te: Of the 274 judgments on merits delivered by Sections, 19 were final judgments. 

[* = judgment not final] 

LIFE 

ARTICLE 2 

Disappearances following Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and lack of effective 

investigation: no violation/violation. 

CYPRUS - Turkey (Nº 25781/94) 

Judgment 10.5.2001 [Grand Chamber] 

(See Appendix I). 

LIFE 

Shooting by police and effectiveness of investigation: no violation/violation. 

HUGH JORDAN - United Kingdom (Nº 24746/95) 

McKERR - United Kingdom (Nº 28883/95) 

KELLY and others - United Kingdom (Nº <strong>30</strong>054/96) 

SHANAGHAN - United Kingdom (Nº 37715/97) 

*Judgments 4.5.2001 [Section III] 

(See Appendix II). 

LIFE 

Shooting by unidentified assailants and effectiveness of investigation: no violation. 

DENIZCI and others - Cyprus (Nº 25316-21/94 and 27207/95) 

*Judgment 23.5.2001 [Section IV]

(See Article 3, below). 

LIFE 

Disappearances and lack of effective investigation: violation. 

AKDENIZ and others - Turkey (Nº 23954/94) 

Judgment 31.5.2001 [Section II] 

Facts: The applicants are relatives of eleven persons who went missing in October 1993 

during a massive security operation against the PKK in south-east Turkey. The applicants 

maintain that the missing persons were taken away by the security forces and that while 

in detention they were allegedly kept tied up (except for one) in the open air and were in 

a state of distress. The Government assert that the missing persons were probably 

kidnapped by the PKK. A delegation of the European Commission of Human Rights took 

evidence and considered the testimony of the applicants to be credible and reliable, 

whereas that of the members of the security forces was not regarded as reliable. The 

Commission found it established that the eleven men had been taken into detention by the 

security forces and treated in the manner alleged. It also found evidence of beating, 

although the nature and extent was not apparent. The Commission found that the men had 

last been seen in detention. The applicants approached numerous authorities in an effort 

to find out about their relatives. However, few steps were taken to investigate. Moreover, 

the applicants were questioned by the authorities about their applications to the 

Commission and two of them were detained in that connection. 

Law: The Court found that the Commission had approached its task of assessing the 

evidence with the requisite caution and that the Government's criticisms did not raise any 

matters of substance which might warrant the Court exercising its own powers of 

verifying the facts. It accepted the facts as established by the Commission. 

Article 2 (disappearances) – The Commission had established that the missing persons 

were last seen in the custody of the security forces in 1993. The Court noted that there 

were no records of that custody. It drew very strong inferences from the length of time 

which had elapsed, the lack of documentary evidence and the inability of the Government 

to provide a satisfactory and plausible explanation. It concluded that the missing men 

must be presumed dead and that the responsibility of the State was engaged. Liability for 

the deaths was attributable to the Government. 

Conclusion: violation (6 votes to 1). 

Article 2 (effective investigation) – The applicants brought the substance of their 

complaints to the notice of numerous authorities but one public prosecutor ceded 

jurisdiction to another, who did not take any statements until August 1994 and then

declined jurisdiction in April 1997. <strong>No</strong> substantive progress was made after the file was 

returned to the first prosecutor. Having regard to the inactivity of the prosecutors and 

their reluctance to pursue any lines of enquiry concerning the involvement of the security 

forces, the investigation did not provide any safeguard in respect of the right to life. 


Article 3 (missing persons) – The Commission had established that the missing persons 

were detained in the open and that most of them were bound. Moreover, some beating 

occurred. This, in addition to the fear and anguish, reached the threshold of inhuman and 

degrading treatment. 


Article 3 (applicants) – While it is not disputed that the applicants suffered, and continue 

to suffer, distress as a result of the disappearances, the Court was not satisfied that the 

case disclosed the special circumstances referred to in the Çakiçi judgment and did not 

consider that the applicants could claim to be victims of the authorities' conduct to an 

extent which disclosed a breach of Article 3. 

Conclusion: no violation (6 votes to 1). 

Article 5 – The Court's reasoning and findings in relation to Article 2 leave no doubt that 

the detention of the applicants' relatives was also in breach of this provision. The relatives 

were detained, there has been no plausible explanation for their whereabouts and the 

investigation was not adequate. Moreover, the lack of custody records is particularly 

serious. There has thus been a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and 

security of person. 

Conclusion: violation (unanimously). 

Article 13 – There can be no doubt that the applicants have an arguable complaint and 

were entitled to an effective remedy. <strong>No</strong> effective criminal investigation can be 

considered to have been conducted in accordance with this provision, the requirements of 

which may be broader than the obligation to investigate imposed by Article 2. 


Article 34 (former Article 25) – The applicants were questioned by police and public 

prosecutors about their applications to the Commission and two were held in custody. 

They must have felt intimidated by these contacts with the authorities, which went 

beyond an investigation of the facts underlying their complaints. This constituted undue 

interference. 

Conclusion: failure to comply with obligations (6 votes to 1).

The Court found it unnecessary to determine whether the failings identified were part of a 

practice. 

Article 41 – The Court found that there was a causal link between the violations and the 

loss by the families of the financial support of the missing persons. While the figures put 

forward in respect of income derived from their farming activities were not supported by 

any documentary evidence and involved a degree of speculation, the Government had not 

provided any detailed arguments to contradict the basis of the calculations or suggested a 

figure they would regard as reasonable. The Court found it appropriate to make awards in 

this respect and awarded the applicants between £12,000 and £80,000 (GBP). As regards 

non-pecuniary damage, it awarded each applicant £20,000 to be held for the widows, 

children or heirs of the missing persons, and also £2,500 in respect of the applicant's own 

suffering. Finally, the Court made an award in respect of costs and expenses. 

INHUMAN TREATMENT 

Ill-treatment in detention: violation. 

ARTICLE 3 


*Judgment 23.5.2001 [Section IV] 

Facts: The applicants, who are Turkish Cypriots, allege that in 1994 they (or in the case 

of the ninth applicant, Mrs Tufansoy, her son) were arrested and ill-treated by the Cypriot 

authorities – and in particular officers of the Central Intelligence Service – before being 

expelled to the northern part of Cyprus. They were told that they would be shot if they 

returned. The ninth applicant's son did return and was later shot and killed by unidentified 

assailants. Others who returned claim they were forced to give statements that they had 

been ill-treated on the north. The Government maintain that the applicants left 

voluntarily. A report by the United Nations Force in Cyprus was transmitted to the 

Cypriot Government and an investigation was carried out jointly by a police officer and a 

forensic pathologist, who did not examine the applicants himself but concluded on the 

basis of photographs that there was no evidence of beating or torture. He carried out an 

autopsy on the ninth applicant's son but a criminal investigation failed to disclose 

incriminating evidence against anyone. An inquest was held and a verdict of death by 

premeditated criminal acts by unknown persons was returned. A delegation of the 

European Commission of Human Rights heard a number of witnesses. 

Law: As the Commission had not completed its examination of the case by 31 October 

1999, the Court was required to assess the evidence and establish the facts in the light of 

all the materials before it. It based its findings on the oral and written evidence, but noted 

that several witnesses had failed to appear and that it had not been provided with the case

file of any detailed investigation on the domestic level. It noted that all the applicants had 

provided the same account of events during the hearing and considered that there were 

serious doubts about the credibility of the statements they had given to the Cypriot 

authorities. The Court found that the arrests and expulsions appeared to have been carried 

out according to a similar plan. 

Ill-treatment: The Court noted that the medical evidence revealed that the applicants 

presented a number of injuries of various degrees. It relied mainly on the findings of the 

UN doctors and to a lesser extent on the medical examinations which some applicants 

underwent in the northern part of Cyprus. It took into account that the forensic 

pathologist had not personally examined the applicants but had been dependent on 

photographs, so that his findings inevitably carried less weight. Moreover, he had 

rejected the applicants' allegations in an over-assertive and dogmatic manner, making a 

number of comments which were not of a medical nature. His evidence therefore had to 

be treated with caution. In the light of these considerations, the Court found it established 

or reasonable to conclude that the applicants had been beaten or assaulted in detention, 

although the precise manner could not be determined. 

Confiscation of belongings: The Court found no evidence to support the contention of 

one of the applicants that the police had taken money from him. It did find it established, 

however, that another applicant had been deprived of the use and enjoyment of his 

property due to his forcible expulsion. 

Control of movement: The Court was not convinced that the CIS officers had acted only 

as social workers in relation to Turkish Cypriots and found no evidence to support the 

assertion that surveillance had been for the purpose of protecting the applicants. It 

appeared that the Cypriot authorities closely monitored the applicants' movements. 

Killing of the ninth applicant's son: There was no evidence from the investigation file 

allowing any finding as to the identify of the killers. On the other hand, there was no 

significant omission or lack of care in the conduct of the investigation, which was 

followed by an inquest. 

Government's preliminary objection – Despite the conclusions of the UN report that there 

was adequate material to support the plausibility of the allegations, the Attorney General 

had not at any time enquired into them and it could not be considered important that the 

applicants had not formally addressed a complaint to him. Moreover, the Government's 

argument that proceedings would have been doomed to failure in the absence of the 

applicants' cooperation lacked substantiation. As to a civil action, against the background 

of a lack of prosecution against any State official the prospects of success had to be 

considered negligible. Finally, a complaint to the Ombudsman, who has no power to 

order any measures or impose any sanctions, could not be regarded as an effective 

remedy either. Consequently, there were no effective remedies in respect of the Article 3 

complaints. As for the complaint under Article 2, an investigation had been opened at the 

authorities' initiative, but no incriminating evidence had been found against any person

and the ninth applicant was not therefore required to pursue any domestic remedies in 

that respect. 

As far as one of the applicants was concerned, in view of his failure to appear before the 

delegates and the time which had elapsed since then without any further information 

being forthcoming, it could be concluded that he did not intend to pursue his application, 

which was therefore struck out. 

Article 2 – While it had not been possible to establish who killed the ninth applicant's 

son, it had to be determined whether the State had complied with its positive obligations. 

Firstly, as far as protective measures were concerned, there was nothing to suggest that he 

had feared for his life or had reported such fears to the police, nor was there anything to 

indicate that the Cypriot authorities ought to have known he was at risk. There was 

therefore no violation on that account. As to the effectiveness of the investigation, 

various steps had been taken by the authorities, including an examination of the scene 

and an autopsy, and there was no element to allow the Court to conclude that the 

investigation was inadequate. 

Conclusion: no violation (unanimously). 

Article 3 – The Court found that police officers had intentionally subjected the applicants 

to ill-treatment of varying degrees of severity, but it had not been established that their 

aim was to extract confessions. Moreover, the precise manner of infliction could not be 

determined, there was uncertainty as to the severity of the injuries sustained by some of 

the applicants and no evidence had been adduced to show any long-term consequences. 

The ill-treatment could not be qualified as torture but was nonetheless serious enough to 

be considered inhuman. 


Article 5 – The Government had not advanced any lawful basis for the applicants' arrest 

and detention. 


Article 8 – The Court found it unnecessary to examine this complaint (physical and moral 

integrity). 

Conclusion: not necessary to examine (unanimously). 

Article 1 of Protocol <strong>No</strong>. 1 – The Court found the factual basis for one applicant's 

complaint to be insufficient to reach the conclusion that this provision had been violated, 

and with regard to another applicant it considered that the deprivation of property was a 

consequence of his expulsion and did not require separate examination from the 

complaint under Article 2 of Protocol <strong>No</strong>. 4.

Conclusion: not necessary to examination (unanimously). 

Article 2 of Protocol <strong>No</strong>. 4 – The Cypriot authorities had closely monitored the 

applicants' movements between the north and south and within the south and the 

applicants were not allowed to move freely in the south. The restrictions on their 

movement fell under this provision and constituted an interference. <strong>No</strong> lawful basis had 

been advanced by the Government and it was not claimed that the measures were 

necessary to achieve one of the legitimate aims in paragraphs 3 and 4. 


Article 3 of Protocol <strong>No</strong>. 4 – The applicants had not claimed that they were expelled to 

another State and the Republic of Cyprus, sole legitimate government of Cyprus, was 

itself bound to respect international standards in the field of human and minority rights. 

In the circumstances, it was unnecessary to determine whether this provision applied and, 

if so, whether it had been complied with. 

Conclusion: not necessary to examine (unanimously). 

Article 34 (former Article 25) – As far as the ninth applicant's son was concerned, he had 

not lodged an application with the Commission when he made a statement to the Cypriot 

authorities. As for another of the applicants, no evidence had been adduced to support his 

allegation that he had made his statements under pressure from the Cypriot police or that 

any of the applicants had been threatened in relation to his application. It had not been 

sufficiently established that they were subjected to improper pressure to withdraw their 

allegations. 

Conclusion: no failure to comply with obligations (unanimously). 

Article 41 – The Court awarded each of the applicants 20,000 Cypriot pounds (CYP) in 

respect of non-pecuniary damage and also made an award in respect of costs and 

expenses. 

INHUMAIN TREATMENT 

Head injury sustained while applicant in the hands of the police: violation. 

ALTAY - Turkey (N° 22279/93) 

*Judgment 22.5.2001 [Section I] 

Facts: On 2 February 1993 the applicant was forcibly arrested by the police and detained 

in custody at the police’s anti-terrorist branch until 16 February. The doctor who 

examined him fourteen days after his arrest noted the presence of three scars resulting

from head injuries. The applicant lodged a complaint alleging ill-treatment by the officers 

responsible for him during his time in police custody. In June 1993 the provincial 

governor decided to take no action on the complaint because there was insufficient 

evidence against the police officers; he noted that the officers had used force to arrest the 

applicant and that the latter had banged his head against a door while attempting to 

escape during questioning. That decision was taken following proceedings to which the 

applicant had no access, and was not served on him. In May 1994 the Istanbul National 

Security Court found the applicant guilty of seeking to overthrow the constitutional order 

and sentenced him to the death penalty, commuted to life imprisonment. That decision 

was upheld by a judgment of the Court of Cassation. 

Law: Preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) – the administrative 

authorities had decided to take no action on the applicant’s complaint to the public 

prosecutor’s office and their decision had not been served on either the applicant or his 

lawyer. 

Article 3 – The Government were required to provide a plausible explanation as to the 

cause of the applicant’s injuries. However, they merely referred to the outcome of 

domestic proceedings, in which the injuries were said to have resulted from the use of 

force during the applicant’s arrest and from the incident that had occurred while he was 

trying to escape during questioning. Those explanations did not appear convincing. 

Having regard to the authorities’ duty to account for individuals under their supervision 

and for all evidence adduced, in the instant case the respondent State bore responsibility 

for the head injuries which the applicant had sustained while under police supervision. 

Yet those injuries to a vital organ had been observed only on the applicant’s fourteenth 

day in custody, even though the applicant had been in a particularly vulnerable position 

in that he had been dependent on police officers and had had no contact with a doctor for 

fourteen days and a lawyer for fifteen days. The treatment to which he had been subjected 

had therefore been inhuman. 


Article 5(3) – A period of fifteen days in police custody without appearing before a judge 

was incompatible with the notion of promptness. 


Article 6(1) – One of the three members of the Istanbul National Security Court had been 

a military judge. Although the provisions governing the composition of national security 

courts had since been amended, the Court was solely concerned with the particular facts 

of the case. As in the Incal and Çiraklar cases, the applicant was a civilian; appearing 

before a court among whose members was a military judge (a regular officer in the armed 

forces), on charges of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order and undermine 

national unity, he could legitimately have feared that the court might allow itself to be 

unduly influenced by considerations which had nothing to do with the nature of the case.

Accordingly, the applicant’s misgivings as to the National Security Court’s lack of 

independence and impartiality could be regarded as objectively justified. 


<strong>No</strong>t necessary to examine the other complaints (unanimously). 

Article 41 – The applicant sustained non-pecuniary damage which, assessed as a whole, 

warranted payment of a sum of FRF 100,000. The Court also awarded a lump sum of 

FRF 10,000 in respect of costs and expenses which the applicant had claimed without 

quantifying them or providing documentary evidence. 


Ill-treatment in detention: violation. 



(See Article 2, above). 


Mental suffering due to disappearance of relatives: no violation. 

CYPRUS/CHYPRE - Turkey (Nº 25781/94) 




Mental suffering due to disappearance of relatives: no violation. 


Judgment 31.5.2001 [Section II]



Failure of social services to remove children from parents known to be neglecting them: 

violation. 

Z. and others - United Kingdom (Nº 29392/95) 

*Judgment 10.5.2001 [Grand Chamber] 

(See Appendix III). 


Conditions of detention of detainee suffering from withdrawal symptoms: communicated. 

McGLINCHEY and others - United Kingdom (N° 50390/99) 

[Section III] 

Judith McGlinchey, mother of two of the applicants and daughter of the third one, was 

convicted of theft and sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. She had a long history of 

heroin addiction and was asthmatic. On 7 December 1998, at the first health screening on 

arrival at the prison, the applicant complained of swelling to her left arm, withdrawal 

symptoms and severe asthma. The following medical report showed that she was 

complaining of withdrawal and vomiting repeatedly. On 8 December 1998, she was not 

given the prescribed drug for withdrawal, allegedly as a punishment for having been very 

loud and demanding during the night. The next day, she refused to clean her cell and was 

consequently confined to it all day; she declined every meal. She carried on vomiting in 

the following days. On 14 December 1998, she had a particularly serious bout of 

vomiting during which she lost consciousness and had to be taken to hospital. A lot of 

vomit was found on her bed. The following day, she had a cardiac arrest but was 

resuscitated. However, she died on 3 January 1999. An inquest into her death was held 

before a jury; the jurors reached an open verdict. Legal aid was granted to the applicants 

to pursue domestic remedies for compensation. However, in the light of an expert 

medical report, counsel for the applicants advised them that there was insufficient 

evidence to establish a causal link between Judith McGlinchey’s death and alleged 

negligent care in custody. They decided not to pursue their claims in negligence. 

Communicated under Articles 3, 13 and 35(1) (exhaustion of domestic remedies).


Alleged ill-treatment in police custody: admissible. 

OKKALI - Turkey (N° 52067/99) 

Decision 15.5.2001 [Section I] 

In 1995 the applicant, then aged twelve, was handed over to the police by his employer, 

who accused him of having stolen a sum of money from him. At the police station the 

applicant was questioned by Superintendent I.D. and Constable M.Y. One hour after 

taking him to the police station, the employer returned with the applicant’s father, with 

whom he had agreed a friendly settlement. The employer withdrew the complaint he had 

lodged against the applicant. The applicant’s father signed a statement confirming that his 

son was in good health on being returned to him. However, once they arrived home, the 

applicant admitted that he had been beaten by the police officers who had questioned 

him. His father accordingly took him to hospital, where the presence of bruises was 

noted. The applicant was kept under observation in the paediatrics department. His father 

lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor against I.D. and the officers under his 

orders. The public prosecutor interviewed the applicant when he was discharged from 

hospital. The applicant was then examined by two experts from the Institute of Forensic 

Medicine. It was noted in their medical reports that he had a large number of bruises and 

had sustained a muscle injury to his left forearm. The public prosecutor interviewed I.D., 

who denied that he had ill-treated the applicant. M.Y., when questioned, also denied that 

the applicant had been ill-treated. Other officers from the police station were summoned 

for questioning; their statements were favourable to I.D. The final medical report that was 

drawn up confirmed the previous reports and noted the presence of other haematomas 

and bruises on the applicant’s body. The public prosecutor committed I.D. and M.Y. for 

trial in the Assize Court, in accordance with the Criminal Code, on a charge of extraction 

of confessions by public officials through the use of torture. The court acknowledged that 

the police officers had beaten the applicant, but amended the legal classification of the 

offence to "assault and ill-treatment". It imposed the minimum penalty on them: three 

months’ imprisonment and three months’ suspension from duties. Those penalties were 

reduced to two months and fifteen days on account of the defendants’ good conduct 

during the trial, as provided for by the Criminal Code. The Assize Court then commuted 

the penalties to fines before ordering a stay of execution, since the defendants did not 

have a criminal record and the judges were satisfied that they would "hesitate" before 

reoffending. The Court of Cassation allowed an appeal on points of law by the 

applicant’s lawyer and set aside the judgment on the ground that the offence had been 

given the wrong legal classification. After re-examining the case file, the Assize Court 

held that the offence should be classified as "extracting confessions". It again imposed 

the minimum penalties: one year’s immediate imprisonment and three months’ 

suspension from duties. Those penalties were reduced to ten months’ imprisonment and 

two months and fifteen days’ suspension from duties for the same reasons as before. The

applicant’s lawyer again appealed on points of law, this time unsuccessfully. The Court 

of Cassation’s judgment, which was not served on the applicant’s lawyer, did not address 

the grounds of appeal which he had raised. An application for compensation submitted to 

the administrative courts by the applicant’s lawyer was dismissed at first instance. The 

appeal proceedings are still pending. 

Admissible under Articles 3 and 13. Inadmissible under Article 5(1)(c). 


Continued detention of very elderly convict: inadmissible. 

SAWONIUK - United Kingdom (N° 63716/00) 

Decision 29.5.2001 [Section III] 

In 1921, the applicant was born in Domachevo, a town situated in Poland at the time. 

Between 1941 and 1944, the town was occupied by the Germans. The applicant joined 

the local police established by the Germans and became local commander of the force. 

The Nazi policy of genocide against the Jewish population was implemented in the town 

by the local police. The applicant left the region in 1944 and settled in the United 

Kingdom in 1946. In 1996, in accordance with the War Crimes Act 1991, he was 

interviewed by the British police concerning his activities in Domachevo during the 

German occupation. He was subsequently charged with four counts of murder. Witnesses 

for the prosecution alleged that he had been directly involved in the executions of Jewish 

persons. Two of the counts however were dropped due to insufficient evidence. The 

proceedings continued in respect of the two other counts against him. One of the 

witnesses made a reference to a document according to which the applicant had been 

member of the Waffen SS; this document however had not been put in evidence. The trial 

judge directed the jury so that they would not use the said document as evidence to reach 

their verdict. During cross-examination of the applicant, the prosecution asked whether 

the applicant had served in the German army and asked questions concerning the 

impugned document. After the closing speeches of the parties, the judge decided to 

withdraw the applicant’s bail. He considered it to be in the applicant’s own interest and 

took into account his advanced age (79 at the time), his state of health, the fact that he 

lived alone at an address known by the press and that he would be held in the hospital 

wing of the prison where he would be sent. Review of the decision withdrawing his bail 

was rejected. The jury convicted the applicant of the remaining counts against him. He 

was sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment. His appeal of the conviction 

was rejected by the Court of Appeal. The House of Lords later refused the petition for 

leave to appeal; no reasons were given for the refusal. 

Inadmissible under Article 6(1): As regards the applicant’s complaint that he was unable 

to obtain a fair hearing due to the length of time between the events under examination

and the trial, the Convention does not impose any time-limit in respect of war crime 

prosecutions. In the instant case, the burden of proof laid on the prosecution to establish 

beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had committed the offences charged and that 

he was afforded a fair and effective opportunity, through his counsel and solicitors, to put 

forward the matters in his favour, notably concerning the reliability of the evidence of 

witnesses. The judge adequately emphasised these points in his summing-up to the jury. 

<strong>No</strong> issue arose under the present Article insofar as the jury was left to decide for itself 

whether the evidence dating back to 1943 was credible and reliable. The applicant further 

submitted that evidence went before the jury of wrongdoing not concerned by the 

indictment and the nature of the evidence was such as to cause his standing with the jury 

irreparable prejudice. However, the judge clearly indicated in his summing-up to the jury 

the evidence that could be relied on to convict him. As to the evidence concerning the 

context of the incidents, in the trial of a person for war crimes, it is not realistic to expect 

that the evidence can be restricted to the specific counts alleged without the context of the 

incidents being examined. As regards the document in which it appeared that he had been 

a member of the Waffen SS, the brief reference to this document during the trial would 

not have had such an impact on the jury as to improperly or unfairly influence them 

against the applicant. Finally, there was no right for the applicant to an appeal to the 

house of lords. It was a second and exceptional level of appeal for which leave was 

required and for which special requirements of public importance were imposed. Given 

that the applicant’s appeal in the Court of Appeal had been examined in a hearing and a 

lengthy judgment given, the refusal of leave to appeal without specific reasons being 

given did not infringe Article 6. Overall, the applicant was not deprived of a fair trial: 

manifestly ill-founded. 

Inadmissible under Articles 3 and 5: The applicant referred to his advanced age (79-80), 

health problems and inadequacies of treatment in prison rendering imprisonment an 

exceptional hardship. There is no prohibition in the Convention against the detention in 

prison of persons who attain an advance age. Nevertheless, a failure to provide the 

necessary medical care to prisoners may constitute inhuman treatment and there is an 

obligation on States to adopt measures to safeguard the well being of persons deprived of 

their liberty. However, the applicant has not taken proceedings in the courts where due to 

the Human Rights Act 1998 in force since October 2000, he would have be able to rely 

directly on the provisions of the Convention. He therefore failed to exhaust domestic 

remedies. There was no basis for finding that the imposition of a sentence of 

imprisonment on the applicant infringed the prohibition contained in Article 3. <strong>No</strong>r, given 

the seriousness of the offences having led to his conviction, can the life sentence be 

regarded arbitrary or disproportionate. Besides, there was no indication that the life 

imprisonment sentence removed any prospect of release for the applicant: manifestly illfounded. 

DEGRADING TREATMENT 

Discrimination against Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus: violation.




DEGRADING TREATMENT 

Hostility displayed towards persons belonging to the Roma minority: communicated. 

LACKO, DEMETEROVÁ and LACKO - Slovakia (N° 47237/99) 

[Section II] 

The applicants belong to the Roma minority. In 1981, several Roma families, including 

those of the first and second applicants, went to work in an agricultural cooperative 

situated in Krásny Brod. The cooperative offered them accommodation. The first and 

second applicants were granted permanent residence respectively in Nagov and 

Rokytovce, villages which, until 1990, were part of the municipality of Krásny Brod. 

When the cooperative ceased its activities in 1989, they lost both their jobs and their 

accommodation. Thereafter, they were unable to settle anywhere in the area, non-Roma 

residents proving extremely hostile and forcing them to leave whenever they tried to 

settle in any of the nearby municipalities. In June 1997, the municipal council of 

Rokytovce adopted a resolution according to which Roma would be expelled if they tried 

to settle in the village. The council considered that only two of the Roma, including the 

second applicant, had permanent residence in Rokytovce. At the same time, the 

municipality of Nagov issued a similar resolution forbidding Roma to settle in Nagov. In 

July 1997, the dwellings which the first and second applicants had built in one of the 

municipalities of the area were destroyed by unidentified persons. According to the 

applicants, the authorities did not investigate the matter.. The first applicant and the third 

applicant (who worked for a legal defence foundation for ethnic minorities) filed a 

petition with the Constitutional Court challenging the resolution issued by the municipal 

council of Rokytovce; the second applicant concurrently lodged a constitutional petition 

against the resolution of the municipal council of Nagov. The Constitutional Court 

dismissed them both, considering that the first and second applicants had not been 

affected by the impugned resolutions. As to the third applicant, it held that he had 

permanent residence in another district and had not established that he intended to settle 

in Nagov or that he had been prevented from doing so. The court therefore considered 

that he could not claim to be a victim. 

Communicated under Articles 34 (victim), 35(1) (exhaustion of domestic remedies), 3, 8, 

2 of Protocol N° 4, 14 and 13.

EXPULSION 

Deportation to Georgia where the applicants allege a risk of persecution and inhuman 

treatment due to their belonging to the Yezidi religious minority: inadmissible. 

KATANI and others - Germany (N° 67679/01) 

Decision 31.5.2001 [Section IV] 

The applicants are six Georgian families belonging to the Yezidi religious minority who 

arrived in Germany between 1994 and 1996. The Federal Office for Refugees rejected 

their application for refugee status as there was no evidence of systematic persecution of 

Yezidis on the part of the Georgian State. Administrative appeals lodged by the 

applicants against those decisions were dismissed at first instance and on appeal. The 

courts concerned based their decisions on various recent sources of information (from 

Germany, non-governmental organisations, the United States and the European Union) 

on the situation regarding the Yezidis in Georgia. They found that there were serious 

doubts as to the credibility of the facts as set out by the applicants and that the applicants’ 

membership of the Yezidi religious community did not make them a target for 

persecution. The Federal Constitutional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicants. 

Inadmissible under Article 3: In finding that there was no persecution of the Yezidi 

religious community, the German authorities and courts had relied on various sources of 

up-to-date information on the general situation in Georgia and the specific situation 

regarding the Yezidis. The sources showed that the applicants’ situation was no worse 

than that of other members of the Yezidi community, nor perhaps even than that of other 

inhabitants of Georgia, and was not such as to engage the responsibility of the State under 

the Convention. The fact that the Georgian authorities had still not taken necessary and 

sufficient steps to prosecute individuals or groups for offences against members of that 

minority was the result of the country’s general structural weakness rather than of any 

deliberate action against them as a religious minority: manifestly ill-founded. 

Inadmissible under Article 6(1): that provision did not apply to proceedings involving 

political asylum: ratione materiae. 

ARTICLE 5 

SECURITY OF PERSON 

Disappearance following abduction by unidentified kidnappers: no violation. 

SARLI - Turkey (Nº 24490/94) 

Judgment 22.5.2001 [Section I]

Facts: The applicant's son and daughter disappeared in 1993 after being abducted by six 

unidentified armed men. The European Commission of Human Rights concluded, on the 

basis of evidence taken by a delegation, that it had not been established beyond a 

reasonable doubt that the men belonged to the security forces, there being more evidence 

that they were members of the PKK, although that had not been established either. Few 

steps appear to have been taken to trace the missing persons. Moreover, in 1996 the 

applicant's lawyer was accused of making propaganda against the State. It was asserted 

that he had prepared an application to the Commission on behalf of the applicant's 

husband without there being any lawyer-client relationship. He was later acquitted. 

Law: The Court accepted the facts as established by the Commission. 

Preliminary objection (non-exhaustion) – The applicant was not required to bring 

administrative proceedings, which could not have led to the identification and 

punishment of those responsible. Moreover, it is not apparent that there was any basis for 

a civil claim against any State official with any reasonable prospects of success. As for 

criminal law remedies, the matter was sufficiently brought to the attention of the public 

prosecutor but few steps appear to have been taken to elucidate the facts. In the absence 

of any prompt or effective investigation, there was no basis for any meaningful recourse 

to the range of remedies referred to by the Government and the preliminary objection 

must be dismissed. 

Article 5 – In view of the finding that it has not been established beyond a reasonable 

doubt that the missing persons were taken away by the security forces, it is not 

appropriate to examine whether the safeguards of Article 5 were complied with. As to the 

effectiveness of the procedures for investigation, these are examined under Article 13. 

Conclusion: no violation (unanimously). 

Article 13 – The applicant may be regarded as having an arguable claim that his children 

disappeared after allegedly being taken into custody, so that the authorities were under an 

obligation to conduct an effective investigation. <strong>No</strong> criminal investigation can be 

considered to have been conducted in accordance with Article 13 and the applicant has 

therefore been denied an effective remedy and thereby access to any other available 

remedies. 


Having regard to the findings under Article 13, it is not necessary to determine whether 

the failings identified are part of a practice. 

Article 34 (former Article 25) – The Court cannot agree with the assertion that the 

proceedings against the lawyer were unrelated to the application. It is not material that he 

was not named as the applicant's representative in the proceedings before the 

Commission and Court: his role in submitting the petition was instrumental in assisting 

the applicant's lawyers in the United Kingdom in introducing the application. <strong>No</strong>r does

the fact that the lawyer was eventually acquitted alter the fact that for over a year he was 

the subject of a criminal investigation and trial and lived under the deterrent and 

intimidatory effect thereof. The pursuit of criminal proceedings in those circumstances 

must be considered an interference with the right of petition. 

Conclusion: failure to comply with obligations (6 votes to 1). 

Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant £5,000 (GBP) in respect of non-pecuniary 

damage and also made an award in respect of costs. 


Alleged detention of missing persons and lack of effective investigation: 

no violation/violation. 





Disappearances: violation. 




LAWFUL ARREST OR DETENTION 

Unlawful arrest and detention: violation. 



(See Article 3, above).

LAWFUL DETENTION 

Continued detention of post-tariff lifer after non-violent offence: admissible. 

STAFFORD - United Kingdom (N° 46295/99) 


In 1967, the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 

1979, he was released on a life licence. In breach of his licence, he left the country and 

went to South Africa. Consequently, in 1980, his licence was revoked. In 1989, he was 

arrested in the United Kingdom in possession of a false passport. He was fined for being 

in possession of a false passport but remained in custody by reason of the revocation of 

his life licence. In March 1991, the applicant was released on a life licence again. In 

1993, he was convicted for forgery and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. In 1994, 

the applicant’s licence was revoked, further review being fixed at the parole eligibility 

date of his six year sentence. Consequently, in 1996, the Parole Board reviewed the 

applicant’s case and recommended his release on life licence. In February 1997, the 

Secretary of State rejected the Board’s recommendation. Thereafter, the applicant 

remained in prison on the basis of his previous life sentence, given that he had served the 

minimum three years applicable to his sentence for forgery. In September 1997, 

following his request for judicial review, the decision of the Secretary of State was 

quashed. It was held that it was beyond the Secretary of State’s power to detain a posttariff 

lifer other than on the basis that there was a significant risk that the applicant would 

commit an offence involving a risk to the life or limb of the public. However, in 

<strong>No</strong>vember 1997, the Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal. It held that 

domestic law conferred a broad discretion on the Secretary of State to direct the release 

of mandatory life sentence prisoners and that his decision not to release the applicant was 

in accordance with the policy whereby the risk of re-offending was taken into account, 

such risk not having been expressed as being limited to offences of a violent or sexual 

nature. The House of Lords dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Court of 

Appeal’s decision. In December 1998, the applicant was released on licence. 

Admissible under Article 5(1) and (4). 

ARTICLE 6 

Article 6(1) [civil] 

APPLICABILITY 

Proceedings concerning requests for refugee status: inadmissible.

KATANI and others - Germany (N° 67679/01) 


(see Article 3, above). 

ACCESS TO COURT 

Striking out of claims against a local authority on the ground that no duty of care was 

owed by social services in exercising their statutory powers in relation to the care of 

children: no violation. 


T.P. and K.M. - United Kingdom (Nº 28945/95) 

Judgments 10.5.2001 [Grand Chamber] 



Rejection by the Supreme Court of an appeal on points of law as out of time, although it 

had been lodged within the time-limit with the duty judge: communicated. 

STONE COURT SHIPPING COMPANY , S. A. - Spain (N° 55524/00) 

[Section IV] 

In December 1996 the Audiencia Nacional dismissed an appeal by the applicant company 

against a decision rejecting an application it had submitted for compensation from the 

State. In a decision served on the applicant company on 6 March 1997 the Audiencia 

Nacional took note of the company’s intention to appeal on points of law and summoned 

the parties to appear before the Supreme Court to lodge the appeal within the statutory 

period of thirty working days. On Friday 11 April 1997, the day before the expiry of that 

period, the applicant company lodged its appeal at the duty court. The appeal was not 

filed at the registry of the Supreme Court until Monday 14 April 1997. It was declared 

inadmissible by the Supreme Court, which held that the applicant company had failed to 

comply with the deadline for lodging the appeal. The court pointed out that, according to 

the applicable law, it was only possible to lodge appeals at duty courts on the actual date 

of the deadline, and outside the hearing times of the court in which the appeals were

supposed to be lodged. The Supreme Court did not allow a súplica appeal by the 

applicant company, and its constitutional appeal was dismissed. 

Communicated under Article 6(1). 


Failure to notify the applicant of proceedings resulting in the annulment of the 

competitive exam through which she had obtained a teaching position: communicated. 

CAÑETE DE GOÑI - Spain (N° 55782/00) 


The applicant, a geography and history teacher, passed the competitive examination for 

teachers and was appointed to a permanent teaching post. However, following legal 

proceedings instituted by a number of unsuccessful candidates, the Andalusia High Court 

of Justice declared the examination void in a judgment of March 1995, with the result 

that the applicant lost her permanent teaching post. Complaining that she had not been 

summoned to appear before the High Court of Justice as a person with an interest in the 

proceedings, in accordance with section 64(1) of the Administrative Courts Act, the 

applicant lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court, which declared the 

appeal admissible. However, in a judgment of September 1999 the Constitutional Court 

dismissed the appeal on the merits, holding that since the applicant had had extrajudicial 

knowledge of the proceedings, the failure to summon her had not breached of Article 24 

of the Constitution (right to a fair trial). 

Communicated under Article 6(1). 


Impossibility for the applicant to have his case examined either by ordinary courts or 

arbitration courts: communicated. 

CHUKHLOVA - Ukraine (N° 56879/00) 


In <strong>No</strong>vember 1997 the applicant, a trader, applied to the Aleksandriya Court to challenge 

the lawfulness both of the tax authorities’ confiscation of part of her goods and of a fine 

imposed on her for illegal trade. The court found in her favour and ordered the authorities 

to repay her the amount of the fine and to return the confiscated goods. In January 1998

the Regional Court upheld that decision, which became final and was executed. However, 

in August 1999 the same court, at the request of its Deputy President, set aside the 

decision of the Aleksandriya Court and its own decision of January 1998 on the ground 

of lack of jurisdiction, finding that the case should have been heard by the arbitration 

courts. In <strong>No</strong>vember 1999 the applicant therefore lodged the same application with the 

Regional Arbitration Court as the one she had lodged with the ordinary courts. The 

Regional Arbitration Court rejected her application, holding that the case fell within the 

jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. In January 2000 the applicant requested the Supreme 

Court and the Supreme Arbitration Court to determine which court had jurisdiction to 

deal with the case. The Supreme Arbitration Court replied that the arbitration courts had 

since December 1997 been under instructions to reject any applications similar to the one 

lodged by the applicant, since such cases fell within the jurisdiction of the ordinary 

courts. The applicant accordingly applied to the Aleksandriya Court for compensation 

from the tax authorities. Her application was rejected; the court held that the case was a 

matter for the arbitration courts. 

Communicated under Article 6(1) (applicability, fair hearing, access to court) and Article 

34 (victim). 


Annulment by court of final and enforced court decision: communicated. 



(See above). 

FAIR HEARING 

Early hearing of cassation appeal, depriving the appellant of the possibility of 

participating: communicated. 

ANDREJEVA - Latvia (N° 55707/00) 


(See Article 14, below).

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS 

<strong>No</strong>n-communication to party of opinions obtained by courts in administrative 

proceedings: violation. 

K.S. - Finland (Nº 29346/95) 


Facts: The applicant appealed to the Board for Unemployment Benefits against a refusal 

to pay him unemployment benefits. The Board refused his appeal after obtaining opinions 

from the Unemployment Fund and the Employment Commission, neither of which was 

communicated to the applicant. The applicant then appealed to the Insurance Court, 

which dismissed the appeal after obtaining a further opinion from the Unemployment 

Fund. This opinion was not communicated to the applicant either. 

Law: Article 6(1) – The opinions were reasoned opinions which were manifestly aimed at 

influencing the decisions of the courts and, whatever the actual effect they had, it was for 

the applicant to assess whether they required his comments. 


Article 41 – The Court found no causal link between the violation and the alleged 

pecuniary loss. It awarded the applicant FIM 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage 

and made an award in respect of costs and expenses. 

K.P. - Finland (Nº 31764/96) 


The case raises issues similar to those in K.S. v. Finland, above. 

FAIR HEARING 

Article 6(1) [criminal] 

Self-incrimination – obligation to submit documents to the tax authorities: violation. 

J.B. - Switzerland (Nº 31827/96) 

*Judgment 3.5.2001 [Section II] 

Facts: Tax evasion proceedings were brought against the applicant by the District Tax 

Commission, which requested him to submit all documents relating to investments in

particular companies. The applicant admitted that he had made investments without 

properly declaring the income, but did not submit the documents. When again requested 

to declare the source of the income, he did not reply. The District Tax Commission 

decided to issue a supplementary tax but later withdrew this. After the applicant had 

failed to reply to two further requests, the Cantonal Administration imposed a 

disciplinary fine of 1,000 Swiss francs. The District Tax Commission admonished the 

applicant on four occasions as he still had not submitted the required information and 

then imposed two further disciplinary fines of 2,000 Swiss francs. The applicant's appeal 

against the second fine was dismissed by the Tax Appeals Commission. He then filed an 

administrative law appeal with the Federal Court, which dismissed the appeal. A fourth 

fine was subsequently imposed but did not acquire legal force. In the meantime, the 

applicant and the tax authorities had reached an agreement closing all tax and criminal 

proceedings and fixing the amount to be paid by the applicant, including a fine of over 

20,000 Swiss francs. It was expressly stated that the proceedings before the European 

Court of Human Rights would not be affected. 

Law: Article 6(1) – The proceedings at issue served the purposes both of establishing the 

taxes due by the applicant and, if the conditions were met, of imposing a supplementary 

tax and a fine for tax evasion on him. Nevertheless, the proceedings were not expressly 

classified as constituting either supplementary tax proceedings or tax evasion 

proceedings. From the beginning and throughout the proceedings the tax authorities could 

have imposed a fine on the applicant on account of the criminal offence of tax evasion 

and, according to the settlement, the applicant incurred such a fine, which was not 

intended as pecuniary compensation but was essentially punitive and deterrent in nature. 

Moreover, the amount was not inconsiderable and there can be no doubt that it was 

"penal" in character. Whatever other purposes the proceedings served, by enabling the 

imposition of such a fine they determined a criminal charge. Article 6 therefore applies. 

It appears that the authorities were attempting to compel the applicant to submit 

documents which would have provided information as to his income in view of the 

assessment of his taxes. While it is not for the Court to speculate on what the nature of 

such information would have been, the applicant could not exclude that any additional 

income which it transpired from the documents came from untaxed sources would have 

constituted the offence of tax evasion. While an agreement was reached which closed the 

various proceedings, it expressly excluded the application to the Court. The situation in 

the present case differs from that in which there is an obligation to produce material 

which has an existence independent of the person concerned, such as a blood 

test. Moreover, in view of the persistence with which the tax authorities attempted to 

achieve their aim, the Court was unconvinced by the argument that the applicant was not 

obliged to incriminate himself since the authorities were in fact already aware of the 

information. Finally, as to the alleged impracticability of a separation of regular tax and 

criminal tax proceedings, it is not the Court's task to indicate what means a State should 

use in order to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. 

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The Court ordered reimbursement of the fine which the applicant had 

contested before the Federal Court. It also made an award in respect of costs and 

expenses. 

FAIR HEARING 

Trial concerning war crimes taking place fifty years after the events: inadmissible. 

SAWONIUK - United Kingdom (N° 63716/00) 



IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL 

Judges deciding on the merits of a case after having rejected appeals lodged by the 

accused during the investigation: admissible. 

PEROTE PELLON - Spain (N° 45238/99) 


Between 1983 and 1991 the applicant, a regular member of the armed forces, was a head 

of section at the Spanish military intelligence headquarters (CESID), a position in which 

he was responsible for a number of classified documents. In 1995 the director of the 

CESID lodged a complaint with the military courts against the applicant for revealing 

secrets or information relating to national defence and security. Investigation proceedings 

were started against him in which he was charged and detained pending trial. He was 

found guilty by the Central Military Court, sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and 

dismissed from the armed forces. However, two of the judges of the chamber of the 

Central Military Court which had found the applicant guilty, namely the President and a 

reporting judge, had previously sat on a bench of judges of the same court which had 

upheld the order by which the applicant had been charged and other investigative 

measures such as the extension of his time in pre-trial detention. 

Admissible under Article 6(1). 

Article 6(3)(c)

FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE 

Amparo appeal declared inadmissible because not lodged by a lawyer, despite two 

requests by the applicant for a lawyer to be appointed by the court on the ground of his 

lack of means: communicated. 

BOER AUSBURGER - Spain (N° 57217/00) 


The applicant was prosecuted for drug trafficking and convicted at first instance. He was 

sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment, had his voting rights suspended and was ordered 

to pay a fine of 100 million pesetas. He had been represented by an officially assigned 

lawyer. On appeal, he complained inter alia that his request for his wife and parents to 

give evidence at the trial had been rejected and that the evidence had been assessed 

incorrectly. His appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court found that he had not lodged 

an appeal, within the time allowed by domestic law, against the order rejecting his 

request to adduce certain pieces of evidence, and further held that the evidence was 

irrelevant as it was not directly connected to the trial. It added that the judgment had been 

based on sufficient, clear and reasonable grounds. With a view to lodging an amparo 

appeal, the applicant requested the Constitutional Court to assign him counsel and a 

solicitor. In January 2000 the Constitutional Court decided that the appeal should be 

lodged by the barrister and solicitor who had acted on behalf of the applicant in the trial 

court, and gave him ten days to notify it of their names. In February 2000 the applicant 

informed the Constitutional Court that, owing to his insufficient financial resources, he 

had not been assisted by counsel of his choosing in the trial court. He therefore reiterated 

his request for the court to assign him counsel. In March 2000 the Constitutional Court 

found that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements set out in its decision of 

January 2000 and declared the amparo appeal inadmissible. 

ARTICLE 8 

PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE AND HOME 

Situation of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus: violation. 



(See Appendix I).

PRIVATE LIFE 

Footage from municipal surveillance system involving the applicant provided by local 

authority to the media: admissible. 

PECK - United Kingdom (N° 44647/98) 


A surveillance system of video cameras was installed in Brentwood by the local 

authority. The monitoring operator has a direct visual and audio link to the police. The 

applicant was filmed at a central junction with a kitchen knife in his hands. He had just 

attempted to commit suicide by cutting his wrists with the knife but that particular action 

was not filmed. The police, who had been warned by the monitoring operator, arrived at 

the junction and gave him assistance on the spot before taking him to the police station. 

Two photographs from the footage were later published in a press feature of the local 

authority aiming to promote the surveillance system. The title of the article emphasised 

that, thanks to the surveillance system and the intervention of the police, a "potentially 

dangerous situation" had been defused. It was specified in the article that copies of the 

pictures could be obtained from the local authority. Similar articles were published 

together with the same pictures in two local newspapers. The local authority also 

provided the footage of the incident for a local television programme. The masking of the 

applicant’s face, done at the authority’s request, was later considered inadequate by the 

Independent Television Commission to which the applicant had complained. The 

commission nonetheless found that no further action needed to be taken, the station 

having apologised to the applicant. The local authority also gave the footage for a 

programme to be broadcast on a national television channel and orally requested the 

producers to ensure that the applicant remained unidentifiable. His face, however, was 

not masked in the trailers of the programme. The Broadcasting Standards Commission, to 

which the applicant had complained, considered that the masking in the main programme 

was inadequate and that the programme itself constituted an unwarranted infringement on 

his privacy. The television station was directed to broadcast a summary of the 

adjudication and to have a summary published in a national newspaper. The applicant’s 

complaint against one of the local newspapers was rejected by the Press Complaints 

Commission. He unsuccessfully made an application for judicial review of the 

municipality’s disclosure of footage of the surveillance system. His applications for leave 

to appeal were turned down. 

Admissible under Articles 8 and 13. 

FAMILY LIFE 

Failure to involve parent in decision-making process following removal of child on 

grounds of suspected sexual abuse: violation.




FAMILY LIFE 

Orphan's pension granted from the date of lodging of the application for entitlement 

rather than from the earlier date of the parents' death: inadmissible. 

DOMENECH PARDO - Spain (N° 55996/00) 


The applicant, who had been appointed as the statutory guardian of her orphan grandson, 

was awarded an orphans’ pension payable from the date on which she had submitted her 

application (with three months’ retroactive effect). Having submitted the application 

more than one year and four months after the death of the child’s parents, the applicant 

lodged an administrative appeal with a view to obtaining payment of the pension with 

effect from the date of the parents’ death. The court of first instance found in her favour, 

but its decision was set aside on appeal. An appeal by the applicant against the appellate 

court’s judgment on the ground that it conflicted with existing case-law was dismissed. 

The applicant lodged an amparo appeal, arguing that the delay between the parents’ death 

and the date on which she had submitted her application for the orphans’ pension had 

been the result of factors beyond her control for which she could not be held responsible, 

and that she was therefore entitled, in accordance with the constitutional principles of the 

equality of children before the law and the economic and legal protection of the family, to 

claim the orphans’ pension with effect from the date of the child’s parents’ death – the 

event which had given rise to her entitlement to the pension. 

Inadmissible under Article 8: the Convention did not guarantee the right to a pension as 

such. It was not inconceivable that a refusal to award a social-security benefit, such as an 

orphans’ pension, might in some circumstances raise an issue under Article 8, for 

example if the normal development of the child’s private and family life became 

impossible as a result of the refusal. In the instant case, the applicant had been awarded 

the pension for which she had applied; she had not adduced any evidence to prove that 

the refusal to award the pension with effect from the date on which the parents of her 

orphan grandson had died had adversely affected her private and family life and that of 

her grandson: manifestly ill-founded. 

HOME

Denial of access to homes of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus: violation. 




HOME 

Alleged absence of investigation into criminal destruction by unidentified persons of 

dwellings belonging to Roma: communicated. 




HOME 

Demolition of house, used by applicant and situated on estate owned jointly by her and 

relatives, ordered by authorities despite pending court proceedings concerning the 

ownership of the house and division of the estate: admissible. 

ALLARD - Sweden (N° 35179/97) 


The applicant owned jointly with relatives, including her mother, an estate inherited from 

her father. In 1988, a house was built for her on the part of the estate which her mother 

administered. In 1989, after her mother had died, some of the joint owners started 

proceedings against the applicant in order to have the house pulled down. They submitted 

that it had been built without their consent, contrary to domestic law requirements. In 

May 1990, the District Court issued a decision whereby the applicant was to remove the 

house. If she failed to do so, the house would be demolished and she would have to bear 

the costs. In 1994, the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. In the meantime, in 

October 1990, the applicant had brought proceedings to have the joint ownership 

dissolved and the individual plots distributed amongst the joint owners. However, the 

competent authority refused to create a plot where the house was situated, on the ground 

that it had been decided by court decision that it should be removed. The applicant then 

appealed to the Real Estate Court. In 1995, she also had requested the District Court to

determine the ownership of the house in question. As regards the initial proceedings, she 

lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court requesting that they be suspended until the 

outcome of the proceedings dealing with the division of the estate or those regarding the 

establishment of the ownership of the house. In March 1996, the Supreme Court rejected 

her request and refused her leave to appeal. The Enforcement Office fixed a deadline for 

the applicant to remove the house. The office agreed to postpone the deadline once but 

rejected the applicant’s following request. In May 1996, the District Court also refused to 

postpone the fixed deadline. The office finally ordered that the house be pulled down. 

The applicant lodged an appeal asking for an immediate stay of the demolition order. The 

Court of Appeal turned down her request and refused to grant her leave to appeal against 

the District Court’s decision of May 1996. The applicant was refused leave to appeal by 

the Supreme Court. The house was finally pulled down and she was asked by the 

Enforcement Office to bear the costs of the enforcement. She unsuccessfully appealed 

against the office’s decision and was refused legal aid. In <strong>No</strong>vember 1996, the Real 

Estate Court issued a decision by which the applicant was awarded a plot where the 

house had been. As regards the proceedings concerning the ownership of the house, the 

District Court found, in July 1997, that the house was part of the estate of the applicant’s 

mother. Accordingly, at the time of the District Court’s judgment of May 1990, the house 

did not belong to the applicant. In February 1997 and 2000, the competent authority 

granted the applicant building permits for the plot of land. 

Admissible under Articles 8 and 1 of Protocol N° 1. 

FREEDOM OF RELIGION 

ARTICLE 9 

Restrictions on religious activities of Greek Cypriots and Maronites in northern Cyprus: 

violation/no violation. 




FREEDOM OF RELIGION 

Conviction of Jehovah's Witness for refusing to do military service: friendly settlement. 

STEFANOV - Bulgaria (Nº 32438/96)

Judgment 3.5.2001 [Section IV] 

The applicant, a Jehovah's Witness, refused on conscientious grounds to perform military 

service. He was sentenced to one and a half year's imprisonment in 1995. On appeal, the 

sentence was suspended for three years. The applicant's petition for review was dismissed 

by the Supreme Court in <strong>No</strong>vember 1996. The applicant considered that his conviction 

was unlawful, since the 1991 Constitution provided that the conditions and procedure for 

exemption from military service or for its replacement by substitute service should be 

regulated by Act of Parliament. An Act regulating substitute service came into force on 

1 January 1999. 

The parties have reached a friendly settlement on the following basis: 

a) all criminal proceedings and judicial sentences in Bulgaria of Bulgaria citizens since 1991 

(especially but not limited to the applicant and three applicants in other cases for refusing military 

service by virtue of their individual conscientious objection but who were willing at the same time 

to perform alternative civilian service shall be dismissed and all penalties and/or disabilities 

heretofore imposed in these cases shall be eliminated as if there was never a conviction for a 

violation of the law, thus the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria undertakes the 

responsibility to introduce draft legislation before the National Assembly for a total amnesty for 

these cases; 

b) That the alternative civilian service in Bulgaria is performed under a purely civilian 

administration and the military authority is not involved in civilian service and such service shall 

be similar in duration to that required for military service by the law on military service then in 

force; 

c) That conscientious objectors have the same rights as all Bulgarian citizens to manifest their 

beliefs whether alone or in union with others after hours and on days off during the term of 

performing said civilian service without prejudice, sanction or another disability or impediment. 

(see ... Kokkinakis v. Greece [judgment] ), ... 

e) That the respondent Government will pay ... [to the applicant] the sum of 2,500 Bulgarian levs 

... for costs and expenses; 

f) The applicant[ ]..., having the Bulgarian Government fully complying with the conditions listed 

above on points a, b, c, ... and e, agree to withdraw [his] petition[...] against Bulgaria, filed with 

the European Court of Human Rights." 

ARTICLE 10 

FREEDOM TO RECEIVE <strong>INFORMATION</strong> 

Censorship of school books for Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus: violation. 


Judgment 10.5.2001 [Grand Chamber]


FREEDOM TO IMPART <strong>INFORMATION</strong> 

Injunction preventing newspaper from publishing pictures of a person along with articles 

in which allegations are made against him: admissible. 

KRONE VERLAGS GmbH & CoKG -. Austria (N° 34315/96) 


The applicant company owns and publishes a newspaper. On several occasions, it 

published articles on the financial situation of P. who was at the same time both a teacher 

and a member of the European Parliament. The articles contained, inter alia, allegations 

whereby he received a salary as a teacher although under domestic law he was not 

entitled to it whilst being a member of the European Parliament. Photographs of P. were 

added to the impugned articles. At P.’s request, the Regional Court issued an injunction 

prohibiting the publication of his picture together with articles such as those that had been 

published. The court found that the P.’s interest in having prohibited the publication of 

his photograph outweighed the applicant company’s interest in the publication of articles 

illustrated with his photograph. It held that the photographs had no specific information 

value that could justify their publication. The appeal lodged by the applicant company 

was dismissed and its appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible by the Supreme 

Court. 

Admissible under Article 10. 

EFFECTIVE REMEDY 

ARTICLE 13 

Availability of effective remedies for Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus: violation/no 

violation. 



(See Appendix I).


Effective remedy in respect of shooting by police: violation. 

HUGH JORDAN - United Kingdom (Nº 24746/95) 

McKERR - United Kingdom (Nº 28883/95) 

KELLY and others - United Kingdom (Nº <strong>30</strong>054/96) 

SHANAGHAN - United Kingdom (Nº 37715/97) 

*Judgments 4.5.2001 [Section III] 

(See Appendix II). 


Lack of effective remedy in respect of failures of local authorities in relation to care of 

children: violation. 



Judgments 10.5.2001 [Grand Chamber] 



Absence of effective remedy in respect of disappearances: violation. 


Judgment 22.5.2001 [Section I] 



Judgment 31.5.2001 [Section II]


ARTICLE 14 

DISCRIMINATION (Article 6) 

Applicant obliged to pay court fees for unsuccessful appeals lodged by the Government: 

communicated. 

RUSATOMMET Ltd. - Russia (N° 61651/00) 


(See Article 1 of Protocol <strong>No</strong>. 1, below). 

DISCRIMINATION (Article 8) 

Impossibility for child to inherit from natural father having died intestate: communicated. 

G.N. - Ireland (N° 52787/99) 


The applicant was born out of wedlock. In 1987, his natural father died intestate. 

According to the legislation applicable at the time of death, the applicant, as a natural 

child, had no inheritance rights. In 1989, he brought proceedings to obtain a declaration 

of paternity and in January 1998 the High Court declared that the deceased was the father 

of the applicant. The applicant introduced his application to the Court in July 1998. 

Communicated under Article 35(1) (six months, exhaustion of domestic remedies) and 

Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14. 

DISCRIMINATION (Article 1 of Protocol <strong>No</strong>. 1) 

Entitlement to retirement pension for periods of work outwith Latvia restricted to 

nationals: communicated. 

ANDREJEVA - Latvia (N° 55707/00) 

[Section II]

The applicant is a former USSR national and has been living in Latvia since 1954. Prior 

to her retirement, she worked in firms based in Riga, except between January 1973 and 

<strong>No</strong>vember 1990 when she worked for employers with a registered office in Kiev or 

Moscow. In 1990 Latvia declared its independence. In 1995, when the law on the status 

of citizens of the former USSR without Latvian or any other nationality was passed, she 

was granted the status of a "permanently resident non-citizen". In 1997 she retired and 

asked the Latvian authorities to calculate her pension entitlement. The authorities applied 

the transitional provisions of the State Pensions Act, by which only periods of work in 

Latvia were taken into account in the calculation of pensions for foreigners who had been 

resident in Latvia on 1 January 1991. The applicant’s pension was therefore calculated 

solely in respect of her periods of work before January 1973 and after <strong>No</strong>vember 1990, 

the dates between which her employers had had their registered office outside Latvia. She 

appealed to a higher administrative authority to review that decision. Her appeal was 

dismissed on the ground that the mere fact of having lived and worked within Latvian 

territory during the period in issue was of no consequence, since her employer had had its 

registered office outside Latvia and had accordingly not paid tax to the Latvian 

authorities. Court proceedings brought by the applicant were unsuccessful both at first 

instance and on appeal. She appealed on points of law to the Senate of the Supreme 

Court. The registry informed her in writing that the case would be set down for trial on 6 

October 1999 and gave the exact time at which the examination of her appeal was due to 

start. On that day, however, the hearing began earlier than scheduled and the Senate 

decided to try the case before the parties had even arrived. The public prosecutor 

expressed the opinion that the appeal was well-founded, but after deliberation, the Senate 

dismissed the appeal. The applicant requested that her appeal on points of law be reexamined; 

her request was refused on the ground that no possibility existed for the 

revision of a judgment in such circumstances. She was assured that all the submissions of 

the parties had been taken into consideration. 

Communicated under Article 14 taken together with Article 1 of Protocol <strong>No</strong>. 1. 

NATIONAL MINORITY 

Discrimination against residents of Roma origin: communicated. 




ARTICLE 33

INTER-STATE CASE 




VICTIM 

ARTICLE 34 

Annulment of final and enforced decision by which applicant had obtained 

reimbursement of fine and restitution of confiscated goods: communicated. 



(See Article 6(1), above). 

HINDER EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION 

Proceedings brought against applicant's lawyer: failure to comply with obligations. 





Applicants allegedly compelled to make statements to authorities: no failure to comply 

with obligations. 


*Judgment 23.5.2001 [Section IV]



Questioning of applicants about their applications: failure to comply with obligations. 




ARTICLE 35 

Article 35(1) 

EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES 

Effectiveness of remedies in the "Turkish Republic of <strong>No</strong>rthern Cyprus". 




SIX MONTH PERIOD 

Use by applicant of remedy offering no possible redress but providing an element 

favourable to his application to the Court: communicated. 

G.N. - Ireland (N° 52787/99) 



ARTICLE 44

Article 44(2)(b) 

The following judgments have become final in accordance with Article 44(2)(b) of the 

Convention (expiry of the three month time limit for requesting referral to the Grand 

Chamber) (see Information <strong>No</strong>te <strong>No</strong>. 27): 

FERNANDES CASCÃO - Portugal (Nº 37845/97) 

Judgment 1.2.2001 [Section IV] 

BENSAID - United Kingdom (Nº 44599/98) 

Judgment 6.2.2001 [Section III] 

KROMBACH - France (N° 29731/96) 

RICHET - France (Nº 34947/97) 

GOMBERT and GOCHGARIAN - France (Nº 39779/98 and Nº 39781/98) 

EZZOUHDI - France (Nº 47160/99) 

Judgments 13.2.2001 [Section III] 

PIALOPOULOS and others - Greece (Nº 37095/97) 


CANKOÇAK - Turkey (Nº 25182/94 and Nº 26956/95) 


KURZAC - Poland (Nº 31382/96) 

SZELOCH - Poland (Nº 3<strong>30</strong>79/96) 

Judgments 22.2.2001 [Section IV] 

ECER and ZEYREK - Turkey (Nº 29295/95 and Nº 29363/95) 

ISMIHAN ÖZEL and others - Turkey (Nº 31963/96) 

LUCÀ - Italy (N° 33354/96) 

GALATÀ and others - Italy (Nº 35956/97)

GIAMPETRO - Italy (Nº 37170/97) 

CIOTTA - Italy (Nº 41804/98) 

ARIVELLA - Italy (Nº 41805/98) 

ALESIANI and 510 others - Italy (Nº 41806/98) 

COMITINI - Italy (Nº 41811/98) 

PETTIROSSI - Italy (Nº 44380/98) 

CORNAGLIA - Italy (Nº 44385/98) 

LIBERATORE - Italy (Nº 44394/98) 

VISENTIN - Italy (Nº 44395/98) 

G.B. - Italy (Nº 44397/98) 

VALENTINO - Italy (Nº 44398/98) 

M. S.R.L. - Italy (Nº 44406/98) 

TAGLIABUE - Italy (Nº 44417/98) 

SBROJAVACCA-PIETROBON - Italy (Nº 44419/98) 

MAURI - Italy (Nº 44420/98) 

MARZINOTTO - Italy (Nº 44422/98) 

MICHELE TEDESCO - Italy (Nº 44425/98) 

BELUZZI - Italy (Nº 44431/98) 

BERLANI - Italy (Nº 44435/98) 

BUFFALO S.R.L. - Italy (Nº 44436/98) 

BOCCA - Italy (Nº 44437/98) 

TRASPADINI - Italy (Nº 44439/98) 

BEVILACQUA - Italy (Nº 44442/98)

MARCHI - Italy (Nº 44443/98) 

W.I.E. S.N.C. - Italy (Nº 44445/98) 

IANNITI and others - Italy (Nº 44447/98) 

ADRIANI - Italy (Nº 46515/98) 

GIANNI - Italy (Nº 47773/98) 

CONTI - Italy (Nº 47774/98) 

ILARDI - Italy (Nº 47777/98) 

Judgments 27.2.2001 [Section I] 

DONNADIEU - France (Nº 39066/97) 

CULTRARO - Italy (Nº 45880/99) 

JERUSALEM - Austria (Nº 26958/95) 

Judgments 27.2.2001 [Section III] 

ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL <strong>No</strong>. 1 

PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT OF POSSESSIONS 

Denial of access for Greek Cypriots to property in northern Cyprus: violation. 





Unilateral change by Government of conditions for liquidation of bonds, depriving 

applicant company from obtaining liquidation of its bond: communicated. 

RUSATOMMET Ltd. - Russia (N° 61651/00)


In May 1993, the Ministry of Finance issued bonds. In July 1999, the applicant company 

acquired a bond and later the same month asked for its liquidation. However, no payment 

was made, the ministry having allegedly ordered that all payments of bonds be 

suspended. However, on the applicant company’s request, the City Commercial Court 

ordered payment of the bond. The ministry was exempted from paying court costs on the 

ground that public bodies were legally exempted from the requirement to pay them. The 

City Commercial Court dismissed the subsequent appeal of the ministry. In <strong>No</strong>vember 

1999, the Government issued an Order whereby the bonds issued in 1993 were to be 

converted into new bonds with extended maturity dates. Upon the ministry’s appeal, the 

Federal Commercial Court quashed the decisions of the two lower instances and 

dismissed the applicant company’s complaint. The court relied on the 1999 Order and 

considered that the Government had not refused to honour their debt but had decided, 

after negotiations with bond holders, to convert the existing debt into new bonds. The 

applicant company was ordered to pay the court costs of the three instances. Its request 

for supervisory review was rejected. In October 2000, the Government issued another 

Order by which the time-limit for issuing the new bonds was set for the end of October 

2000. In January 2001, the applicant company which had re-applied for liquidation of its 

bond was informed that the deadline for the issuing of the new bonds had expired and 

that no payment could be made for the bond it was holding. 

Communicated under Article 1 of Protocol N° 1 and Article 6 in conjunction with Article 

14. 


Demolition of house, used by applicant and situated on estate owned jointly by her and 

relatives, ordered by authorities despite pending court proceedings concerning the 

ownership of the house and division of the estate: admissible. 

ALLARD - Sweden (N° 35179/97) 


(See Article 8, above).

INFORMATION NOTE No. 30 on the case-law of the Court May 2001

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?